I&B Ministry
Govt sharpens TRP policy: advisory roles out, conflict of interest curbed
NEW DELHI: In a move set to shake up the television ratings ecosystem, the ministry of information & broadcasting has proposed amendments to its decade-old policy on television rating agencies in India and opened the floor for public comments.
The fresh draft tweaks the 2014 guidelines with sharper guardrails. Among the headline changes: rating agencies must now be Indian-registered companies under the Companies Act, 2013, and are barred from offering consultancy or advisory services that could lead to a conflict of interest with their core job—ratings.
In a bid to declutter the framework, the ministry has deleted clauses 1.5 and 1.7, along with the proviso tagged to clause 1 post explanation.
(Clause 1.5 basically states that “any member of the board of directors of the television rating company shall not be in the business of broadcasting/ advertising/advertising agency.)
(Clause 1.7 states that the company shall comply with the following cross holdings requirements, namely.
(a) No single company/ legal entity, either directly or through its associates or inter-connected undertakings, shall have substantial equity holding in rating agencies and broadcasters/advertisers/ advertising agencies.
(b) No single company/legal entity, either directly or through its associates or inter-connected undertakings, shall have substantial equity holding in more than one rating agency operating in the same area.
(c) The cross-holdings restriction will also be applicable in respect of individual promoters besides being applicable to legal entities.
(d) A promoter company/member of the board of directors of the rating agency cannot have stakes in any broadcaster/ advertiser/advertising agency either directly or through its associates or inter-connected undertakings.
Explanation: For the purpose of para 1.7, substantial equity shall mean equity of 10% or more of paid-up equity. Having a substantial equity holding in companies shall constitute a cross-holding. Provided that the eligibility conditions stipulated at 1.5, 1.6 and 1.7 will not be applicable in the self-regulation model where the industry-led body, such as, Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC) itself provides the rating.)
The new norms will apply not just to future applicants but also to existing players in the market.
Stakeholders and the general public have 30 days to respond to the draft, preferably via email to the ministry. The consultation marks a significant step towards transparency and credibility in India’s ratings architecture—a space often marred by controversy and trust deficits.
The complete amendment order and policy guidelines are available on the I&B ministry’s website.
I&B Ministry
IT Rules tweaks are clarificatory, not expansion of powers: MeitY
Govt signals flexibility as platforms push for clarity on user content rules
NEW DELHI: The Centre has sought to dial down concerns over its proposed amendments to the IT Rules, with Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology secretary S Krishnan asserting that the changes are intended as clarifications rather than an expansion of regulatory powers.
Pushing back against criticism from platforms and civil society, S Krishnan said the amendments “do not in any way actually give us wider powers” and are meant to remove ambiguity in how existing provisions are applied. He added that the trigger came largely from within the ecosystem, with intermediaries themselves seeking clearer guidance on compliance, takedowns and record preservation.
At the heart of the debate is the growing friction between platforms and policymakers over responsibility for user-generated content. Intermediaries have argued that they should not be treated on par with publishers, particularly when content is created and uploaded by users. Krishnan acknowledged this concern, noting that “a sharper distinction” between user content and publisher content is needed and is currently under examination.
The issue becomes more complex in enforcement scenarios. While registered publishers can be directly asked to modify or remove content, intermediaries often lack control over the original creator. “In such cases, the intermediary cannot direct those changes,” Krishnan explained, underlining the need for procedural nuance.
Another key proposal under discussion is to bring user-generated news and current affairs content within a more unified regulatory ambit, potentially under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. The move follows suggestions that a single authority should handle such content, regardless of whether it originates from a publisher or an individual user.
Even as the government frames the amendments as a tidy-up exercise, fault lines remain. Industry players have flagged concerns over compliance burdens, especially for smaller businesses, and questioned whether advisories could effectively become binding without explicit legislative backing. Krishnan said the government is mindful of these risks and is exploring ways to ease obligations, including possible relaxations under certain provisions.
The ministry is also considering consolidating multiple advisories and guidelines into a more structured framework, a step widely seen as addressing long-standing confusion over what platforms are expected to follow.
On takedowns, the government has reiterated that due process will remain unchanged. Krishnan stressed that actions will continue to be governed by established procedures, with reasons recorded and review mechanisms in place. He also pointed to the surge in deepfakes and synthetic media as a factor behind rising content disputes, calling it a “scale challenge” for regulators.
Interestingly, Krishnan also framed social media platforms as commercial entities rather than pure vehicles of free expression, hinting at a broader shift in regulatory thinking as platform economics come into sharper focus.
With stakeholders seeking more time and, in some cases, a rollback of the proposals, the government has kept the consultation process open-ended. Krishnan said further revisions remain on the table, signalling a willingness to adapt the draft based on feedback.
For now, the message from MeitY is clear: the rules may not be tightening in intent, but the effort to define them more clearly is well underway.
